Re: Why the time kept at the ISS is UTC? And Einstein's time?

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:26:05 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 12.12.2024 18:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:41:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>

>
The truth is that no clock which ticks out seconds as defined by SI
will stay synchronous with UTC, unless it is on the Earth's geoid.
>
This is so thoroughly experimentally verified that it can be
considered to be a fact, and nothing to discuss.
>
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
>

>

According to relativists here recently, the LT must be required due to
the motion of the Earth, even though it is only 1/10,000th the speed of
light.

>
What does this statement mean?
Would "the motion of the Earth" not exist without the LT?
>
You are a master of stating meaningless statements.
>

>
The GPS has to communicate with the Earth.

>
So what?
Did you have a point with stating the bleeding obvious?
>

>
Seconds defined by SI are defined by atomic clocks,

>
Not quite.
>
SI has defined the time unit second like this:
"The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
  to the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cs-133 atom."
>
A clock which ticks out seconds with the duration defined
above will in the following be called an SI-clock.
>
>

so atomic clocks
move at a different rate in space.

>
You probably meant to say:
  "atomic clocks run at a different rate in space"
>
If the "atomic clock" is an SI-clock, this is wrong.
>
SI-clocks always run at the rate one second per second (1Hz).
By definition!
>

Inferring that time runs at a different rate is absurd.

>
Right!

Then, you have no evidence of time dilation from the rate of the
clocks—none at all from anywhere.

>
In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is by definition "a clock".
So (proper) "time" is what we measure with clocks.
>
A second of "time" always lasts a second.
Proper clocks (like SI-clocks) and thus "time" always run at
the same rate 1Hz by definition.
>
>

The rate of combustion of rocket fuel remains the same.

>
Imprecise, but probably right.
>
If the rocket burns a constant amount of fuel per second,
the accelerating force will remain constant.
>
Did you think SR/GR claim otherwise?
>

Here, Paul provides a good example of the deluded confusion of the
relativists.
If time itself dilated, then every rate of change would change in
unison, including the rate at which the fuel burns. It burns at the same
rate, so time does not dilate. What you are saying is the same as saying
the astronaut at light speed is not aging at a different rate. Make up
your mind. Relativity is so stupid and illogical.